"Zogby's Director of Communications and polling analyst Fritz Wenzel says that Congressman Ron Paul is the strongest of the Republican frontrunners to go up against Hillary Clinton, underlining the fact that the rest of the field are just ringers as the establishment prepares to install Clinton and prolong the Bush-Clinton power monopoly. "

"My second passion is taking the political knowledge I have gained over my career and interpreting the current political landscape to fellow Christians through a radio program that I produce. My program, "America in a Minute," allows my to share my experience to those who may not spend a lot of time trying to understand what is going on in Washington and the other corridors of power"

"# OwnerWenzel Strategies(Public Relations and Communications industry)May 2005 — Present (4 years 2 months)Wenzel Strategies is a firm that specializes in building effective communications and political strategies for clients and then executing those strategies to successful conclusions. Clients include business, political, and educational organizations.#Director of CommunicationsZogby International(Public Relations and Communications industry)September 2005 — November 2008 (3 years 3 months)As director of communications, I was in charge of all media strategies and the company's public profile, as well as internal communications. I also worked with clients to develop a strategy for publicizing their polling work in the most effective way, and then executed that plan. I also planned and led focus groups across the country for clients, both political and corporate. As director, I also managed a small department staff."

"In November 2004, Lucas County was among the most hotly contested areas in the most hotly contested state. Kerry won the county by 45,000 votes, but George W. Bush went on to win Ohio by less than 120,000 votes, which swung the election for him.But Bush's reelection may have been made possible by a Blade reporter with close ties to the Republican Party who reportedly knew about Noe's potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.According to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist, Fritz Wenzel, was told of Noe's potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, Wenzel never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004.Wenzel says that he heard allegations of Noe's misdeeds only in spring 2004 and that he promptly informed his editors of them.Wenzel, who worked for years as a GOP political operative in Oregon before the Blade hired him, quit the Blade in May 2005 to take a job as a paid political consultant to Jean Schmidt, the Republican congressional candidate who in August narrowly defeated Democratic challenger (and Iraq war vet) Paul Hackett. "

"JON SOPEL: Right. Okay. That's very interesting and if you were to stick your neck out and say, who is this race going to be between come November.FRITZ WENZEL: Well, as a pollster, I can't really stick my neck out. But the odds are favouring Hillary Clinton and John McCain. "

“We were very clear that we controlled the survey at all time. We knew it was going to be sensitive enough. The center saw the survey before it went out, but at no time did they have any say about the survey.”

June 16, 2009 - A new Wenzel Strategies poll shows nearly half of all adults in America believe there has been a decrease in personal freedom under the Obama administration, which signals a significant degree of alarm across a wide swath of the country over where the new President may be taking the country. The country has seen some dramatic governmental intervention over the course of the last five months, and some Americans may be reacting with fear to the speed with which Washington is acting.

The survey, part of a “Freedom Index” polling project commissioned by WorldNetDaily.com, hints of change in how people see Washington. The old perception of the federal government as a lethargic leviathan, powerful enough to alter the landscape of the country but which was too ineffective or disengaged to do so, is no more. This survey shows the swift Obama intervention in the auto industry, which at first may have been seen as comforting, now clearly has some Americans quite uneasy. With Obama now eyeing health care reform and making promises of fast action there, many are clearly getting nervous about the hobbling of the free market and government’s role of picking of winners and losers in the U.S. economy. If there was any skepticism that Obama intends to move to make good on his promise of “change,” his speedy dealing with General Motors and Chrysler have dispelled that doubt.

Do you believe that, under the Obama Administration, America has seen an increase or a decrease in personal freedom?

Scale:

1. A big increase

31%

2. Some increase

10%

3. Neutral

14%

4. Some decrease

8%

5. A big decrease

37%

The telephone survey was conducted June 6-10, 2009, and included 790 adults nationwide. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

More than a third – 37% – said they believe there has already been a “big decrease” in freedoms under Obama, whose administration is just five months old. But the survey also found that there is great unease in the government’s use of technology. More than half – 55% – said the government’s use of cameras, scanners, and electronic health records have become too intrusive into the lives of Americans, including 41% who said government is now “very intrusive.”

These twin findings – that nearly half think the Obama administration has reduced freedoms and that a notable majority think government is using technology to intrude into the lives of citizens – paint a picture of a nation on edge over what might come next.

It is important to note that 41% said that they have seen a significant increase in personal freedoms under Obama, with respondents in the western United States expressing the most enthusiasm. This may be linked directly to Obama administration stances on two issues of key importance in the West – its relaxed approach to illegal immigration and to enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Overall, 15% were neutral on the question of Obama’s impact on personal freedom.

Do you believe that government today is using technology, such as cameras, scanners, and electronic health records, to too intrusive into the lives of citizens?

Scale:

1. Gov’t not intrusive

11%

2. Not very intrusive

14%

3. Neutral

20%

4. Somewhat intrusive

14%

5. Gov’t very intrusive

41%

The nation is clearly divided along racial lines on the question of Obama’s impact on personal freedom, as two out of three African Americans saying there has been an increase but just one out of three whites saying the same thing. A majority of whites – 52% – said they have seen a decrease in freedoms, and 26% of blacks agreed. Almost half of Hispanics said there has been a “big decrease” in freedoms under Obama.

The survey found several other instances in which notable percentages felt afraid to publicly express their true feelings about politics or religion. More than one–third (34%) said they believe Americans in general feel fearful of punishment or retribution if they express their minds freely. Asked specifically if they themselves felt fear of harm, retribution, or government investigation for expressing their true feelings publicly, 32% said they did. Another 28% said they “self–censor” before speaking in public.

Just as alarming are the findings on freedoms of association and worship. One in three said they believe Americans are fearful of punishment or retribution over the people with whom they associate, with 21% saying there is “great fear.” Older respondents were more likely than younger ones to sense that fear, as 40% of those over age 60 said there is fear of harm or retribution over associations.

One in four said Americans today cannot worship in the manner they choose without fear they will be punished, ostracized, investigated, or face some other penalty, while 42% said they believed there is no such fear across the country. Another 17% said there might be a little fear, and yet another 17% were neutral on the question.

That so many see such fear in the common exercise of basic rights makes one wonder at what has happened in the nation known worldwide as the land of the free. A nexus of government activism, technological invasions of privacy, and political correctness run amok has clearly spooked America.

Freedom Index at 57.6

A “freedom index” created from data yielded from 10 questions testing American attitudes toward different aspects of freedom shows an initial ranking of 57.6 on a 100–point scale. This index can be interpreted as meaning that Americans believe they and their countrymen enjoy a little over half of the liberties promised in the U.S. Constitution. Not all Constitutional freedoms were tested, so this is not an exhaustive measurement of how people feel the Constitution is holding up today, but rather is meant as a indicator of some major themes on the subject of liberty.

This index will be updated monthly to keep track of changes in American attitudes on the subject.

thing to say about this POLL.

NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about the BIRTH CERTIFICATE

It is important to note that 41% said that they have seen a significant increase in personal freedoms under Obama, with respondents in the western United States expressing the most enthusiasm. This may be linked directly to Obama administration stances on two issues of key importance in the West – its relaxed approach to illegal immigration and to enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Overall, 15% were neutral on the question of Obama’s impact on personal freedom.

The idea of starting regular polling about Americans' perception of Government intrusiveness is probably not a bad one. The claim that

The survey, part of a “Freedom Index” polling project commissioned by WorldNetDaily.com, hints of change in how people see Washington. The old perception of the federal government as a lethargic leviathan, powerful enough to alter the landscape of the country but which was too ineffective or disengaged to do so, is no more

is arguable. This poll has no history, we will see this in the coming months. The "Hints" on the "old perception" are total speculation.

Also we would need some data concerning the makeup of the sample which has been obviusly collected given the comments on answers according to racial lines.

The Zogby organisation is actually pretty good at polling, it's rather worrying that Wenzel actually used to work there.As for the poll itself: 790 people in a national phone survey is hardly likely to give robust results. I find their claim of a 3.5% margin of error hard to believe and I note that even if that is correct, then there's statistical difference between the number of people who see an increase in personal freedom and the number of people who see a decrease.I'd also be very suspicious about their claimed figures for African-Aemrican views since they're you're talking about a subsample of probably less than a hundred people.

The Zogby organisation is actually pretty good at polling, it's rather worrying that Wenzel actually used to work there.As for the poll itself: 790 people in a national phone survey is hardly likely to give robust results. I find their claim of a 3.5% margin of error hard to believe and I note that even if that is correct, then there's statistical difference between the number of people who see an increase in personal freedom and the number of people who see a decrease.I'd also be very suspicious about their claimed figures for African-Aemrican views since they're you're talking about a subsample of probably less than a hundred people.

[linkbtn]Last census,http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf[/linkbtn] had 12.9 percent of population at African American. 12.9 % of 790 poll respondents is 102 people. Still ,a very small subsample.

Two things stick out:1) The "Freedom Index" they cite was created by World Nut Daily. However, there's no information on the types of questions asked. For all we know, they were of the "have you stopped beating your dog" types of leading questions.2) At no time did it say it was a random rolling of respondents. It didn't say what regions they polled in either. I would suspect that the respondent pool might have come from World Nut Daily forum members, donors, or other related people - maybe the petition list they're so fond of hyping?Considering how poorly much of this pool meshes with polls from legitimate polling organizations, I'm suspecting a skewed represenative sample or other sampling bias.

Wentzel has emailed me following some questions I gave him. He confirms that, according to his poll,

Hi, Mik - Thanks for the note. It is one of our more interesting polls. The survey found that 51.3% were aware of the issue, while 19% were not.And yes, I will be posting the data from the survey later today

so 51.3 % ARE AWARE of the issuethe poll has no reference to the 49.3% "troubled" by the BC issue as stated by WNDwe will see from the details he will publish later in the day.